fchan

>>721

I know I said I wouldn't post much further, but...

>>722

Don't be simple dude, that's not what I meant. Western culture opperates on an assumption that animals are inferior to humans. The only thing under discussion by any signifigant demographic is HOW inferior animals are. Hell, all cultures probably opperate under this assumption. And anyone who isn't aware of this conceit has been living under a rock.

When I said "communicate", I meant on a human level, so take off with your binary definitions already.

Yeah, the world isn't flat... but that had to be proven before it was accepted. Somehow, I don't think zoophiles are going to be able to get anti-zoos to look through a telescope and show the world that fucking animals is morally sound. And as for homosexuals, those are humans, and all you need to do is ask them how they feel. They can write it up in an essay if necessary, so again, NOTHING like animals.

And yeah, a lot of people think furries are bad... but furries don't DO anything to anyone. For the most part, we look at art, get involved with each other, etc. All human or fantasy, so either there's consent, or nothing's happening.

Jeez, quit trying to drag everyone into the mess with zoophiles. There may be a lot of problems with furries, but we don't have THOSE problems. Hell, even the plushies and suiters don't do anything morally confusing. We're more like anime fans, or trekkies. Zoophiles are on their own branch.

>>718

You seem to have forgotten the entire "informed" part; the animal needs to be capable of understanding "sex". The question is whether to use the human or animal definition, or some hybrid of the two.

I decided to do some refernce checking as well as simply speaking from knowledge. informed consent falls well within the midground of the way it was represented above - might be worthy to ponder that aspect as well.

>>731

Zoophilia will become more tollerated in the future, I am sure.  Before homosexuality became generaly tollerated, it was made fun of.  Maybe most people could not talk about homosexuality with any degree of comfort, but making fun of it was within there comfort zone.  Eventualy, this made everybody more comfortable with homosexuality, even if some disagreed with it on religious grounds.  Next, more and more people started "comming out" on TV and in the movies which got people even more comfortable with homosexuality.  And so, things evolved to they point they are today.

Tooday, TV shows and movies are making fun of zoophilia and I'm betting that the same pattern of mass-desensitization we experienced with homosexuality will occur with zoophilia over the next 20 to 40 years.  I don't this process will go as fast as it did for homosexuals, however, because, to my knowlege, this aren't any zoophile activist groups or a mysterious "zoophile agenda" working for political and social change. 

Switching gears, the idea behind showing your sorces in science and philosophy is so that other people can check them out for themselves to veryify proper interpretation and representation, and over-all validity.  The oposition owes it to themselves to examine your source because that is the only way they can invalidate it. Any thing outside of that is a hollow argument.

Is that simaler to how being a minority is near universally accepted?

>>735

>>736

"I'm also concerned about how being a "conservative" has almost reached insult status in the world. And no, that wasn't at you."

It was my impression that being called a "liberal" was almost like an insult, as it implies a "sinful" hedonistic lifestyle.  That's why some political types have tried using the word "progressive" in place of liberal.  It's a much softer and much more positive word.  It's even the name of an insurance company.

>>738
"Thissss is hoooowwww/liiiiife should beeeee...."
Huh.

>>739

it was brought back up and seemingly it isnt setteled to any degree.
shifts to equivalant. subtle subtle there. never knew that hairs could be split so minutely, we must be into the sub quark range by now.

Okay, time for me to confess, anonymously, my first experience.  It happend at the age of 7, which was three years before I learned what sex was.  Our family had rescued a stray dog and it her in to keep as a pet.  She was a frendly gall, but rather shy on brains. 

One day she started sniffing at my crotch.  Being a perverted little 7 year old, I exposed myself to her.  To my amazment and delight, she to my organ into her mouth.  I thought that she would just sniff it, so I was taken completly off guard. 

She sort of did a suck/lapping motion with her tongue and mouth, but occationaly, I'd get nipped by her mollars.  It hurt, but only a little.  I honestly had no idea what I was doing.  All I knew was that it felt good, really good.  I never orgasmed or anything like that, mostly because I would only let her do that to me for a few moments at a time so I wouldn't get caught.

I view this interaction I had with her as the reason why I became interested in fury and why I see animals as a viable sexual outlet.

Even so, I do not feel that it is good for somebody to seek out a dog or any other animal as there companion, which is why I will refrain from gratifying myself with an animal.  Animals cannot talk to you, so they can't be emotionaly intimate with you.  They don't grow old together with you, and they don't have the imagination to make things interesting in bed.  Beyond matters of preference, humans are supirior lovers in comparison to animals.  Yes, you can have a two-way emotional bond between yourself and an animal, but the nuance and intricasy of that relationship is limited by the animal's lack of ability.

It's like with computers.  A computer is only as fast as it's slowest part.  Likewise, a relationship is only as intricate as its least complex individual.

On the other hand, I do see it fit to provide for an animals sexual needs, either by providing them a mate (and giving them approrpate sterilization surgery such as tubal ligation and vasectomy), or by manualy stimulating them when a mate cannot be provided.  BTW, masterbating an animal is no less unethical or no more immoral than a vet who jerks off a dog or inseminates a bitch in a professional setting.  And for those who don't know, vets do figer bitches after they inseminate them to so that the natural muscular contractions of the bitch's vagina and uterus will help propell the sperm to where it needs to be.  Vets also use an electoric tooth brush or a glass rod to stimulate queens since cats are orgasmic ovulators.

We do know that intact dogs who are allowed to mate have both less prostate cancer and testicular cancer.  It, therefore, stands to reason that bringing dogs or orgasm benifits there health.

Bitches, on the other hand, do not have any percived health benifits from sexual stimulation other than possible immunological and psycological benifits orgasm.  However, a bitch left intact will have a reduced risk of bone cancer and geriatric urinary incontinance as aposed to one that was "fixed".  They do, however, benifit from having a littler of puppies.  A single litter of puppies will significantly reduce a bitch's risk of breast cancer and pyometra later in life.  Of course, the obvious problem with a litter of puppies is finding homes for every one (unless you are willing to take care of them all).

>>744
For some reason, I knew someone was going to bump this. I just expected it to take longer.

>>746

"He just said he was a pervert at seven. I'm *inclined* to believe him."

It's called self-defamating humor.  Get it?  I was making fun of myself.  Boy, you just take the oddest things and run with them.

"Seriously, I have no idea what he's trying to say either."

I'm kaing a sort of compromised view.  See post >>747 as I explain my self further.

>>748

>>744

I feel compelled to comment on your assumption that dogs benefit, physically, from breeding, and also that you erroneously believe that a female dog having a litter before being spayed is a good idea and will prevent reproductive-related cancers.

It's quite the opposite actually. Female dogs should be spayed at 5-6 months of age and should NOT be allowed to have a litter, nor go through a heat cycle because estrogen is stored in the body and thus it increases the chances for mammary and uterine cancers later in life. There is no benefit to having a female dog have a litter before spaying, and to encourage the mentality that there is some sort of benefit just foolish.

Also, there's no evidence which suggests that dogs receive some kind of physical boost (immune boost included) by obtaining an orgasm. You're referencing a human biological trait. Humans are hard-wired to have sex at any given time because humans have sex for recreational purposes. Canids don't have recreational sex and are not hard-wired to breed that often on a continuous basis (you figure a female dog comes into heat only once every 6 months or so, and is only receptive for a few days).

Maintaining a dog by jerking him, or her, off isn't benefiting the dog in any way. Rather, it displays to the dog that you are a willing, and receptive partner with whom he or she can reproduce with, so naturally the behavior continues.

I have to say, I thought about this for a good deal. I'm curious how many self-proclaimed zoos are having sex with neutered and spayed animals...animals which are NOT acting based on the instinct [need] to reproduce. It would seem to me that, with the desire to reproduce gone, an animal that continued to have sex with his or her partner, is truly doing so because they enjoy the activity, whereas the unnetuered or unspayed animal is acting solely because of instinct and the drive to reproduce.

But that's getting off-topic for my particular response...which is simply to inform that allowing a female to have a litter before spaying is NOT beneficial to her health, nor does it prevent reproductive cancers later in life. Likewise, allowing a male dog to ejaculate a few times a week doesn't benefit his health nor prevent cancers either. The only thing that prevents reproductive cancers and diseases is the removal of the hormones which trigger them...testosterone and estrogen, respectively, and the only way to remove those hormones is through neutering and spaying -before- they're prominent in the body (sexual maturity).

>>753

Beaatiality is bad/

Beastiality is good/

Geez moral or not, how many times can you say it and still not get anywhere?

>>752
Part 1

"I feel compelled to comment on your assumption that dogs benefit, physically, from breeding, and also that you erroneously believe that a female dog having a litter before being spayed is a good idea and will prevent reproductive-related cancers."

Of course you feel compelled.  I just contradicted a lie that you have been fed your entire life.

"It's quite the opposite actually. Female dogs should be spayed at 5-6 months of age and should NOT be allowed to have a litter, nor go through a heat cycle because estrogen is stored in the body and thus it increases the chances for mammary and uterine cancers later in life. There is no benefit to having a female dog have a litter before spaying, and to encourage the mentality that there is some sort of benefit just foolish."

Actualy, there is growing evidence that spay/neuter should be done later in life and not during pre-puberty.  http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html  Also, from what I understand about oncology, estrogen "buildup" is not the cause of cancer.  On the contrary, estrogen mearly stimulates certain tissues to grow, and any time  you have tissue growth, there is a cancer risk.  Cancer doesn't develop is tissues where cell division does not take place.  Interesting, as you will read in the attached essay, both male and female dogs who are spayed before purberty grow taller because the mechanism that switches off bone growth is delayed.  Because of the extended growing time, intact dogs are less likely to get osteocarcinoma than individuals who have had there healthy reproductive organs removed.

I'll use the words of Dr. Myrna Milani, DVM in her essay that questions the routine spaying and neutering of animals. because she is far more articulate than I am, nor does she have a nasty potty mouth like me.  This was taken from her web site: http://www.mmilani.com/commentary-200509.html

*Begin Essay*
Spay, Neuter, and Cancer: Revisiting and Old Trinity

Perhaps no aspect of pet ownership in the U.S. elicits as passionately supportive emotions as the subject of spay and neuter. In fact, this orientation is so well established that saying anything that questions the procedure is akin to blasphemy. However, just as women were routinely relieved of their reproductive organs with a "La de da, you'll never miss 'em" attitude until studies exploring the nonreproductive effects of reproductive hormones made human physicians rethink this position, so veterinarians and other animal-care professionals are making tentative moves to rethink wholesale sterilization of companion animals, too.

>>752
Part 3

Currently the exploration of the nonreproductive effects of sex hormones is in its infancy and, unlike the rise of feminism which challenged the philosophy underlying hysterectomy and ovariohysterectomy in women, many of those who normally claim to speak for the animals are usually quiet about how sterilization may affect companion animals. Like Dr Hahn, I, too, have reviewed the literature and am not sure what to tell clients. However, I do know that unless we can free the subject from the emotional cocoon that has protected spay and neuter from objective scrutiny all these years, our pets won't be able to benefit from the knowledge that is slowly, but surely, being generated on this subject.

If you have any comments regarding subject matter, favorite links, or anything you'd like to see discussed on or added to this site, please let me know at mm@mmilani.com.
*End Essay*

"Also, there's no evidence which suggests that dogs receive some kind of physical boost (immune boost included) by obtaining an orgasm."

Of course we don't have any direct reference. <sarchasm>Why would we bother to conduct studies to find out if sex is healthy for them or not.  They are animals, after all, so they don't need sex.  We humans know everything there is to know about dogs, thus, we know best so we rip out there organs because nature did a major fuckup with dogs.</sarchasm>

"You're referencing a human biological trait. Humans are hard-wired to have sex at any given time because humans have sex for recreational purposes. Canids don't have recreational sex and are not hard-wired to breed that often on a continuous basis (you figure a female dog comes into heat only once every 6 months or so, and is only receptive for a few days)."

Actualy, male dogs are reseptive and ready for sex year round.  Male wolves are the ones who have a sex cycle that matches up with the females.  By the way, how do you know that sex isn't recreational to them during there season of breeding?

"Maintaining a dog by jerking him, or her, off isn't benefiting the dog in any way."

Based on what information?  Although I have no direct evidence, at least I have information from other areas of biology that suggest that this idea is at least worth looking into, but I'm sure pro-spay/neuter people like yourself would never stand for such research because, oh heaven forbid, people actualy listen to an alternative view point.  After all, if evidence were discovered that suported my view, would not the pro-spay crowed be upset.  To them, the main goal is to reduce the pet population, thus, it is there goal to make sure every pet is "fixed".  All they care about is information that is pro-spay, so they ignore anti-spay information, regardless of the consequences for the individual.  Of cource, the very word "fix" is a rather stupid uphamism, because the dog wasn't broken to begin with.  The fact that a dog has sexual orgasns was no accident.